THINKING ON HOW TO KILL THE KILLER BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL WHO IS THE KILLER? POLITICAL CORRUPTION IS OUR KILLER IN AFRICA

KNOW YOU KILLER Page 1
LEARN ABOUT THE TRUE KILLERS OF AFRICAN PEOPLE
BY PROF. PAUL ALLIEU KAMARA
PROFESSOR OF LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
RUDOLPH KWANUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, MONROVIA IN THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

INTRODUCTION
Who is or what is the true Killer of African People? This question has being playing on my mind for years’
and years to months and months to weeks and to days. Well today is the day I attempted to search for answers
and to know the true killer of my African People. This article will attempts to suggest some of the killers or
what killers African People. This article is not the final answers to the entire Problem. However, I intended to
limit the discussions on Political Corruption as one of the main factors that kills everything in the hands of
African. So let look at some definitions and characteristics of Political Corruption and its effect in our social-
economic development of Africa.
For the purpose of this article I will define corruption and the type of corruption we have
PART 1. Corruption: Its Meaning, Type, and Real-World Example
Introduction Corruption has recently been the subject of substantial theorizing and empirical
research, and this has produced a bewildering array of alternative approaches, explanations,
typologies and remedies. Corruption is understood as everything from the paying of bribes to
civil servants and the simple theft of public purses, to a wide range of dubious economic and
political practices in which businesspeople, politicians and bureaucrats enrich themselves. The
issue of corruption is an old one, that has re-entered the current political and economic debate
from the new interest in the role of the state in the developing world, and from the assumption
that the state is an indispensable instrument for economic development, redistribution and
welfare. In contrast to the largely rejected “state-dominated” and “state-less” development
models, there is now much consensus on the need for an efficient medium-sized state apparatus
with a political will and adequate economic policies to ensure economic development.
Corruption is seen as counter-productive to the needed economic and political reforms,
accountability, transparency, and good governance. The intention of this paper is to classify the
various forms of corruption in order to operationalize the concept for analytical and practical
purposes. First, different forms of corruption will be outlined. Secondly, corruption will be
defined as a particular state-society relationship, and the distinction made between political
corruption and bureaucratic corruption. Then two more distinctions will be added, namely
between “individual” and “collective” forms of corruption, and corruption as a mechanism of
either “upward extraction” or “downward redistribution”. This will sum up to the basic argument
that the fight against corruption will have to be placed within a broader agenda of
democratization.
What Is Corruption?
Corruption is dishonest behavior by those in positions of power. Those who abuse their power may be
individuals or they may belong to organizations, such as businesses or governments. Corruption can entail a
variety of actions, including giving or accepting bribes or inappropriate gifts, double-dealing, and defrauding
investors. Corrupt behavior is often the result of government intervention in the economy but it can be
prevented with certain checks and balances. One example of corruption in the world of finance would be an
investment manager who is actually running a Ponzi scheme.

KEY TWORDS
 Corruption is dishonest behavior by those in positions of power, such as business managers or
government officials.
 Corruption can come in the form of bribery, double-dealing, and defrauding investors.
 The consequences of corruption can be social and financial but it has a major impact on those who are
financially vulnerable.
 Government intervention in the economy is a root cause of corruption.
 Preventing corruption includes the reinforcement of best business practices, education in the form of
mandatory anti-money laundering courses, and increased accountability.
Understanding Corruption
Corruption is any behavior that leads to the benefit of an entity in power at the expense of others. As such, it's
considered to be an abuse of power. Corruption occurs when someone in a position of power uses their
authority to influence decisions or conducts any other dishonest or fraudulent behavior like giving or accepting
bribes or inappropriate gifts, double-dealing, under-the-table transactions, manipulating elections, diverting
funds, laundering money, and defrauding investors.
There are many situations in which someone can be considered corrupt. Keep in mind that corruption can
involve any entity, whether that's an individual, company, or government. For instance:
 A politician may be deemed corrupt for taking money to sway a vote on a key issue.
 A corporation may be deemed corrupt for trying to influence the market by cooking their books.
 A government may be deemed corrupt by offering a higher degree of resources and incentives, such as
tax breaks and health care, to the wealthy rather than to those who are financially vulnerable.
The act of corruption has financial and social consequences for everyone. But it does have a disproportionate
effect on the most vulnerable. Corruption may further limit their access to the education, health care, and legal
services they need. And they may end up paying more in bribes, as they are often targeted because they may be
less likely to report corruption.
Damage from corruption is multi-fold. When reported, it can lead to unflattering media attention. It can also
attack the foundations of democracy, dampen (economic) growth and development, skew laws and regulations,
create red tape and bureaucratic hurdles, and stunt investment to name a few. This leads to damage to the
offending party's reputation and an erosion of trust. That's because people can lose faith in the people and
organizations in question.
A comprehensive public relations campaign is often required to limit reputational damage and restore trust.
This requires valuable resources, such as time and money, which may result in other critical areas of the
organization being deprived. As a result, inefficiencies that lead to financial losses can occur.
Causes of Corruption
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) cites several key factors that contribute to corruption. These include
government intervention in the economy, the liberalization of policies, and the deregulation and privatization
of certain industries. This can pop up in several different areas, including:

 Lowering wages for civil servants compared to those in the private sector. Certain employees may
resort to taking bribes in order to compensate for the difference in wages.
 Price controls. Corruption thrives when governments intervene by putting these in place to keep prices
lower for certain goods and services.
 Eliminating foreign competition through trade restrictions, tariffs, and trade barriers, thereby opening
up the possibility of a semi-monopoly by domestic players. The latter are more likely to resort to
corrupt behavior to keep restrictions in place for foreign companies to keep their place in the market.
 Corporations and groups may receive government grants and subsidies when they aren't the intended
recipients.
Put simply, the wider the spread of government regulation, the more discretion lawmakers have at applying the
rules. When this happens, it opens the door for dishonest behavior, including taking bribes.
Corruption Prevention
Corruption can increase criminal activity and organized crime in the community when left unchecked. But
there are a number of steps that can help to manage it. The following is a list of possible steps that can be taken
to prevent corruption.
Education: A strong educational focus must reinforce best business practices and alert managers and
employees where to look for corruption. This can be achieved by introducing mandatory education such as
anti-money laundering (AML) courses. Senior executives and managers must set a strong culture of honesty
and integrity by leading by example.
Environment: A robust control environment reduces the risk of corruption as do thorough background checks
before hiring or promoting employees.
Accountability: When there are mechanisms in place, there's a likelihood of reinforcing a culture that fosters
strong ethical behavior while holding those to account who violate the norms.
Regulation: Setting up codes of conduct and ethics can help avoid situations that can create conflicts of
interest. This is common in areas like the financial industry, where chartered financial analysts and other
financial professionals must adhere to these rules or be penalized.
Reporting: Corruption can further be reduced by making it easy to report, whether by managers, employees,
suppliers, and customers. It's also important to ensure that those reporting are able to do so safely and securely.
There must also be clear penalties in place to dissuade people and organizations from engaging in corrupt
behavior. This can include financial penalties and even legal action—prosecution and perhaps jail time.
Real-World Example of Corruption
There are many examples of corruption in the real world. They may include individuals or organizations,
whether that entails corporations or governments. Many often go undetected because the behavior is well
hidden or because it goes undetected. The following are just two examples of documented corruption.

Major Banks
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined five major global banks in 2015 on various corruption
charges.
Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, and The Royal Bank of Scotland agreed to plead guilty to rigging the foreign
exchange market. According to the SEC, the banks "manipulate (d) the price of U.S. dollars and euros
exchanged in the foreign currency exchange (FX) spot market." The four institutions paid criminal fines of
more than $2.5 billion.
UBS also plead guilty to separate charges of manipulating benchmark interest rates, including the London
Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). This charge resulted in a fine of $203 million.
In 2016, the SEC ordered software company PTC to pay a combined $28 million in fines for attempting to
bribe Chinese officials by providing approximately $1.5 million in recreational travel through two PTC China-
based subsidiaries.
PTC struck delicate public relations (PR) effort to restore its reputation as the case became increasingly
public.
What Does Corruption Mean?
Corruption is any dishonest or fraudulent behavior wherein someone uses their position of power to benefit
themselves at the expense of others. The entity can be an individual, corporation, or government. This can
come in the form of giving or taking bribes, double-dealing, and defrauding investors among other actions.
Government intervention is often the root cause of corruption but it can be prevented by putting certain checks
and balances in place. It has social and financial implications but disproportionately affects the most
financially vulnerable.
What Does Government Corruption Look Like?
Government corruption occurs when a ruling party takes on a more invasive and pervasive role. Forms of
government corruption include nepotism, bribery, lobbying, embezzlement, and cronyism. For instance, a
government official may use their power and influence to grant family members high-ranking positions. In
other cases, officials may try to sway election results or harm opponents to hold onto power.
How Do You Stop Corruption?
Putting in checks and balances is important to stop corruption. This includes educating the public, creating a
robust environment, putting accounting mechanisms in place, implementing regulations, and opening up
avenues to reporting and ensuring the safety of those who make these reports. It's also important to enforce
penalties for charges of corruption, including fines and prosecution.
The Bottom Line
Corruption is a form of dishonest behavior that has a big impact on everyone. It occurs when an entrusted
entity abuses its position of power for its own benefit. Corruption can come in many forms including bribes,
double-dealing, and fraud by individuals, businesses, and governments. Corruption has a big impact on

people's social and financial well-being. As such, it can threaten the foundations of democracy, leading people
to lose trust in their leaders.
Compete Risk Free with $100,000 in Virtual Cash
Put your trading skills to the test with our FREE Stock Simulator. Compete with thousands of Investopedia
traders and trade your way to the top! Submit trades in a virtual environment before you start risking your own
money. Practice trading strategies so that when you're ready to enter the real market, you've had the practice
you need. Try our Stock Simulator today.
Related Terms
Corporate Governance: Definition, Principles, Models, and Examples Corporate governance involves
balancing the interests of a company's many stakeholders, which can include shareholders, senior management,
customers, suppliers, lenders, the government, and the community. More Racketeering Definition, State vs.
Federal Offenses and Examples Racketeering typically refers to crimes committed through extortion or
coercion. The term is typically associated with organized crime. More What Is the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act (FCPA)?
Anti -bribery Aim
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a U.S. law that prohibits the payment of bribes to foreign
officials to further business deals.
What Is Embezzlement, and How Does It Happen?
Embezzlement is a form of fraud wherein a person or entity intentionally misappropriates assets for personal
use.
What Is Business Risk? Definition, Factors, and Examples
Business risk is the exposure a company or organization has to factor(s) that can lower its profits or lead it to
fail. Learn how risk is created and how to avoid it.
Who Is Changpeng Zhao?
Changpeng Zhao is the founder and former CEO of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance. He
resigned on Nov. 21, 2023 after pleading guilty to money laundering-related charges.

PART 2 Political Corruptions
Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials or their network contacts for illegitimate
private gain.
Forms of corruption vary, but can
include bribery, lobbying, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft,
and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering,
and human trafficking, though it is not restricted to these activities. Misuse of government power for other
purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is also considered political
corruption.[1]
Over time, corruption has been defined differently. For example, in a simple context, while performing work
for a government or as a representative, it is unethical to accept a gift. Any free gift could be construed as a
scheme to lure the recipient towards some biases. In most cases, the gift is seen as an intention to seek certain
favors such as work promotion, tipping in order to win a contract, job or exemption from certain tasks in the
case of junior worker handing in the gift to a senior employee who can be key in winning the favor.[2]
Some forms of corruption – now called "institutional corruption"[3]
– are distinguished from bribery and other
kinds of obvious personal gain. For example, certain state institutions may consistently act against the interests
of the public, such as by misusing public funds for their own interest, or by engaging in illegal or immoral
behavior with impunity. Bribery and overt criminal acts by individuals may not necessarily be evident, but the
institution nonetheless acts immorally as a whole. The mafia state phenomenon is an example of institutional
corruption.
An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their
official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence. The activities that constitute illegal
corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, some political funding practices that
are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials have broad or ill-defined
powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is
estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually.[4]
A state of unrestrained political corruption is known
as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".
Definition
Corruption is a difficult concept to define. A proper definition of corruption requires a multi-dimensional
approach. Machiavelli popularized the oldest dimension of corruption as the decline of virtue among political
officials and the citizenry. The psychologist Horst-Eberhard Richter's modernized version defines corruption
as the undermining of political values. Corruption as the decline of virtue has been criticized as too broad and
far too subjective to be universalized. The second dimension of corruption is corruption as deviant behavior.
Sociologist Christian Höffling and Economist J.J. Sentuira both characterized corruption as social illness; the
latter defined corruption as the misuse of public power for one's profit.

The third dimension is the quid pro quo. Corruption always is an exchange between two or more
persons/parties where the persons/parties possess economic goods, and the other person/parties possess a
transferred power to be used, according to fixed rules and norms, toward a common good. Fourth, there are
also different levels of societal perception of corruption. Heidenheimer divides corruption into three categories.
The first category is called white corruption; this level of corruption is mostly viewed with tolerance and may
even be lawful and legitimate; typically based on family ties and patron-client systems. The type of corruption
often occurring in constitutional states or state transitioning to a more democratic society is called grey
corruption is considered reprehensible according to a society's moral norms, but the persons involved are still
mostly lacking any sense of doing something wrong. The third category, black corruption is so severe that it
violates a society's norms and laws. The final dimension is called "shadow politics;" this is part of the informal
political process that goes beyond legitimate informal political agreements to behavior that is purposefully
concealed.[5]
Consequences
Consequences on politics, administration, and institutions
Political corruption undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting formal
processes. Corruption in elections and in the legislature reduces accountability and distorts representation in
policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public
administration results in the inefficient provision of services. For republics, it violates a basic principle
of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic virtue.[6]
More generally, corruption erodes the institutional
capacity of government if procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought
and sold. Corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and
tolerance. Recent evidence suggests that variation in the levels of corruption amongst high-income
democracies can vary significantly depending on the level of accountability of decision-makers.[6]
Evidence
from fragile states also shows that corruption and bribery can adversely impact trust in
institutions.[7][8]
Corruption can also impact government's provision of goods and services. It increases the costs
of goods and services which arise from efficiency loss. In the absence of corruption, governmental projects
might be cost-effective at their true costs, however, once corruption costs are included projects may not be
cost-effective so they are not executed distorting the provision of goods and services.[9]
Consequences on economy
In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves,
the management cost of negotiating with officials and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although
some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting bureaucracy, the availability of bribes can also induce officials
to contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are better than covertly
allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts
the field of inquiry and action, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining
inefficient firms.[10]
Corruption may have a direct impact on the firm's effective marginal tax rate. Bribing tax officials can reduce
tax payments of the firm if the marginal bribe rate is below the official marginal tax rate.[9]
However, in
Uganda, bribes have a higher negative impact on firms' activity than taxation. Indeed, a one percentage point

increase in bribes reduces firm's annual growth by three percentage points, while an increase in 1 percentage
point on taxes reduces firm's growth by one percentage point.[11]
Corruption also generates economic distortion in the public sector by diverting public investment into capital
projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of
public sector projects to conceal or pave the way for such dealings, thus further distorting
investment.[12]
Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations,
reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on
government.
Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and Asia is that
in Africa, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital moved
overseas rather than invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but often accurate, image of African dictators
having Swiss bank accounts). In Nigeria, for example, more than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by
Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[13]
University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 Sub-
Saharan countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts.[14]
(The results, expressed in retarded
or suppressed development, have been modeled in theory by economist Mancur Olson.) In the case of Africa,
one of the factors for this behavior was political instability and the fact that new governments often confiscated
previous government's corruptly obtained assets. This encouraged officials to stash their wealth abroad, out of
reach of any future expropriation. In contrast, Asian administrations such as Suharto's New Order often took a
cut on business transactions or provided conditions for development, through infrastructure investment, law
and order, etc.
Environmental and social effects
Corruption is often most evident in countries with the smallest per capita incomes, relying on foreign aid for
health services. Local political interception of donated money from overseas is especially prevalent in Sub-
Saharan African nations, where it was reported in the 2006 World Bank Report that about half of the funds that
were donated for health usages were never invested into the health sectors or given to those needing medical
attention.[15]
Instead, the donated money was expended through "counterfeit drugs, siphoning off of drugs to the black
market, and payments to ghost employees". Ultimately, there is a sufficient amount of money for health in
developing countries, but local corruption denies the wider citizenry the resource they require.[15]
Corruption facilitates environmental destruction. While corrupt societies may have formal legislation to protect
the environment, it cannot be enforced if officials can easily be bribed. The same applies to social rights
worker protection, unionization prevention, and child labor. Violation of these laws rights enables corrupt
countries to gain illegitimate economic advantage in the international market.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has observed that "there is no such thing as an apolitical
food problem." While drought and other naturally occurring events may trigger famine conditions, it is
government action or inaction that determines its severity, and often even whether or not a famine will
occur.[16]

Governments with strong tendencies towards kleptocracy can undermine food security even when harvests are
good. Officials often steal state property. In Bihar, India, more than 80% of the subsidized food aid to poor is
stolen by corrupt officials.[16]
Similarly, food aid is often robbed at gunpoint by governments, criminals, and
warlords alike, and sold for a profit. The 20th century is full of many examples of governments undermining
the food security of their own nations – sometimes intentionally.[17]
Effects on humanitarian aid
The scale of humanitarian aid to the poor and unstable regions of the world grows, but it is
highly vulnerable to corruption, with food aid, construction and other highly valued assistance as the most at
risk.[18]
Food aid can be directly and physically diverted from its intended destination, or indirectly through the
manipulation of assessments, targeting, registration and distributions to favor certain groups or individuals.[18]
In construction and shelter there are numerous opportunities for diversion and profit through substandard
workmanship, kickbacks for contracts and favouritism in the provision of valuable shelter material.[18]
Thus
while humanitarian aid agencies are usually most concerned about aid being diverted by including too many,
recipients themselves are most concerned about exclusion.[18]
Access to aid may be limited to those with
connections, to those who pay bribes or are forced to give sexual favors.[18]
Equally, those able to do so may
manipulate statistics to inflate the number of beneficiaries and siphon off additional assistance.[18]
Malnutrition, illness, wounds, torture, harassment of specific groups within the population, disappearances,
extrajudicial executions and the forcible displacement of people are all found in many armed conflicts. Aside
from their direct effects on the individuals concerned, the consequences of these tragedies for local systems
must also be considered: the destruction of crops and places of cultural importance, the breakdown of
economic infrastructure and of health-care facilities such as hospitals, etc., etc.[19]
Effects on health
Corruption plays a huge role in health care system starting from the hospital, to the government and lifted to
the other institutions that promote quality and affordable health care to the people. The efficiency of health
care delivery in any country is heavily dependent on accountable and transparent systems, proper management
of both financial and human resources and timely supply of services to the vulnerable populace of the nation.[20]
At the basic level, greed skyrockets corruption. When the structure of the health care system is not adequately
addressed beginning from oversight in healthcare delivery and supply of drugs and tendering process,
mismanagement and misappropriation of funds will always be observed. Corruption also can undermine health
care service delivery which in turn disorients the lives of the poor. Corruption leads to violation of human
rights and fundamental freedoms as people supposed to benefit from the basic health care from the
governments are denied due to unscrupulous processes driven by greed. Therefore, for a country to keep
citizens healthy there must be efficient systems and proper resources that can tame the evils like corruption that
underpin it.

Effects on education
Education forms the basis and the fabric in which a society is transformed and different facets of well-being
are shaped. Corruption in higher education has been prevalent and calls for immediate intervention. Increased
corruption in higher education has led to growing global concern among governments, students and educators
and other stakeholders. Those offering services in the higher education institutions are facing pressure that
highly threatens the integral value of higher education enterprise. Corruption in higher education has a larger
negative influence; it destroys the relation between personal effort and reward anticipation. Moreover,
employees and students develop a belief that personal success does not come from hard work and merit but
through canvassing with teachers and taking other shortcuts.[21]
Academic promotions in the higher education
institutions have been disabled by unlimited corruption. Presently, promotion is based on personal connections
than professional achievements. This has led to dramatic increase in the number of professors and exhibits
their rapid status loss.[22]
Utmost the flawed processes in the academic institutions have led to unbaked
graduates who are not well fit to the job market. Corruption hinders the international standards of an education
system. Additionally, Plagiarism is a form of corruption in academic research, where it affects originality and
disables learning. Individual violations are in close relation to the operation ways of a system. Furthermore, the
universities may be in relationships and dealings with business and people in government, which majority of
them enroll in doctoral studies without the undergraduate program. Consequently, money, power and related
influence compromise education standards since they are fueling factors. A Student may finish thesis report
within a shorter time upon which compromises the quality of work delivered and questions the threshold of the
higher education.[23]
Other areas: public safety, trade unions, police corruption, etc
Corruption is not specific to poor, developing, or transition countries. In western countries, cases of bribery
and other forms of corruption in all possible fields exist: under-the-table payments made to reputed surgeons
by patients attempting to be on top of the list of forthcoming surgeries,[24]
bribes paid by suppliers to the
automotive industry in order to sell low-quality connectors used for instance in safety equipment such as
airbags, bribes paid by suppliers to manufacturers of defibrillators (to sell low-quality capacitors),
contributions paid by wealthy parents to the "social and culture fund" of a prestigious university in exchange
for it to accept their children, bribes paid to obtain diplomas, financial and other advantages granted to
unionists by members of the executive board of a car manufacturer in exchange for employer-friendly
positions and votes, etc. Examples are endless.
These various manifestations of corruption can ultimately present a danger for public health; they can discredit
specific, essential institutions or social relationships. Osipian summarized a 2008 "study of corruption
perceptions among Russians ... .30 percent of the respondents marked the level of corruption as very high,
while another 44 percent as high. 19 percent considered it as average and only 1 percent as low. The most
corrupt in people's minds are traffic police (33 percent), local authorities (28 percent), police (26 percent),
healthcare (16 percent), and education (15 percent). 52 percent of the respondents had experiences of giving
money or gifts to medical professionals while 36 percent made informal payments to educators." He claimed
that this corruption lowered the rate of economic growth in Russia, because the students disadvantaged by this

corruption could not adopt better work methods as quickly, lowering thereby total factor productivity for
Russia.[25]
Corruption can also affect the various components of sports activities (referees, players, medical and
laboratory staff involved in anti-doping controls, members of national sport federation and international
committees deciding about the allocation of contracts and competition places).
Cases exist against (members of) various types of non-profit and non-government organizations, as well as
religious organizations.
Ultimately, the distinction between public and private sector corruption sometimes appears rather artificial, and
national anti-corruption initiatives may need to avoid legal and other loopholes in the coverage of the
instruments.
Types
Bribery
In the context of political corruption, a bribe may involve a payment given to a government official in
exchange of his use of official powers. Bribery requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take
it. Either may initiate the corrupt offering; for example, a customs official may demand bribes to let through
allowed (or disallowed) goods, or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the culture
of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to operate
without resorting to bribes. Bribes may be demanded in order for an official to do something he is already paid
to do. They may also be demanded in order to bypass laws and regulations. In addition to their role in private
financial gain, bribes are also used to intentionally and maliciously cause harm to another (i.e. no financial
incentive).[
In some developing nations, up to half of the population has paid bribes during the past 12
months.[26]
The Council of Europe dissociates active and passive bribery and to incriminates them as separate offences:
 One can define active bribery as "the promising, offering or giving by any person, directly or indirectly,
of any undue advantage to any of its public officials, for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or
her to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions" (article 2 of the Criminal Law
Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)[27]
of the Council of Europe).
 Passive bribery can be defined as "when committed intentionally, the request or receipt by any [...] public
officials, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage, for himself or herself or for anyone else, or the
acceptance of an offer or a promise of such an advantage, to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of
his or her functions" (article 3 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)).[27]
This dissociation aims to make the early steps (offering, promising, requesting an advantage) of a corrupt deal
already an offence and, thus, to give a clear signal (from a criminal-policy point-of-view) that bribery is not
acceptable.[citation needed]
Furthermore, such a dissociation makes the prosecution of bribery offences easier since it
can be very difficult to prove that two parties (the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a
corrupt deal. In addition, there is often no such formal deal but only a mutual understanding, for instance when
it is common knowledge in a municipality that to obtain a building permit one has to pay a "fee" to the
decision maker to obtain a favorable decision. A working definition of corruption is also provided as follows in
article 3 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174):[28]
For the purpose of this Convention,

"corruption" means requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue
advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behavior required of the
recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.
Trading in influence
Trading in influence, or influence peddling, refers to a person selling his/her influence over the decision-
making process to benefit a third party (person or institution). The difference with bribery is that this is a tri-
lateral relation. From a legal point of view, the role of the third party (who is the target of the influence) does
not really matter although he/she can be an accessory in some instances. It can be difficult to make a
distinction between this form of corruption and some forms of extreme and loosely regulated lobbying where
for instance law- or decision-makers can freely "sell" their vote, decision power or influence to those lobbyists
who offer the highest compensation, including where for instance the latter act on behalf of powerful clients
such as industrial groups who want to avoid the passing of specific environmental, social, or other regulations
perceived as too stringent, etc. Where lobbying is (sufficiently) regulated, it becomes possible to provide for a
distinctive criteria and to consider that trading in influence involves the use of "improper influence", as in
article 12 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)[27]
of the Council of Europe.
Patronage
The sixth president of the United States, John Quincy Adams' "corrupt bargain" of 1824 is an
example of patronage.
Patronage refers to favoring supporters, for example with government employment. This may be legitimate, as
when a newly elected government changes the top officials in the administration in order to effectively
implement its policy. It can be seen as corruption if this means that incompetent persons, as a payment for
supporting the regime, are selected before more able ones. In nondemocracies many government officials are
often selected for loyalty rather than ability. They may be almost exclusively selected from a particular group
(for example, Sunni Arabs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, or
the Junkers in Imperial Germany) that support the regime in return for such favors. A similar problem can also
be seen in Eastern Europe, for example in Romania, where the government is often accused
of patronage (when a new government comes to power it rapidly changes most of the officials in the public
sector).[29]
Nepotism and cronyism
Favoring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain.
This may be combined with bribery, for example demanding that a business should employ a relative of an
official controlling regulation affecting the business. The most extreme example is when the entire state is
inherited, as in North Korea or Syria. A lesser form might be in the Southern United States with Good ol' boys,
where women and minorities are excluded. A milder form of cronyism is an "old boy network", in which
appointees to official positions are selected only from a closed and exclusive social network – such as the
alumni of particular universities – instead of appointing the most competent candidate.
Seeking to harm enemies becomes corruption when official powers are illegitimately used as means to this
end. For example, trumped-up charges are often brought up against journalists or writers who bring up
politically sensitive issues, such as a politician's acceptance of bribes.

Gombeenism and parochialism
Gombeenism refers to an individual who is dishonest and corrupt for the purpose of personal gain, often
monetary, while parochialism, which is also known as parish pump politics, relates to placing local or vanity
projects ahead of the national interest.[30][31][32][33]
For instance in Irish politics, populist left wing political
parties will often apply these terms to mainstream establishment political parties and will cite the many cases
of Corruption in Ireland, such as the Irish Banking crisis, which found evidence
of bribery, cronyism and collusion, where in some cases politicians who were coming to the end of their
political careers would receive a senior management or committee position in a company they had dealings
with.
Electoral fraud
Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring
about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote
share of the rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter
registration, intimidation at polls, voting computer hacking, and improper vote counting.
Embezzlement
Embezzlement is the theft of entrusted funds. It is political when it involves public money taken by a public
official for use by anyone not specified by the public. Ponzi schemes are an example of embezzlement. Some
embezzlers "skim off the top" so that they continually acquire a small amount over a particular time interval.
This method reduces the likelihood of being caught. On the other hand, some embezzlers steal a very large
amount of goods or funds in a single instance and then disappear. Sometimes company managers underreport
income to their supervisors and keep the difference. A common type of embezzlement is that of personal use of
entrusted government resources; for example, when an official assigns public employees to renovate his own
house.[38]
Kickbacks
A kickback is an official's share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an
organization involved in corrupt bidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of choosing how
to spend some public funds. He can give a contract to a company that is not the best bidder, or allocate more
than they deserve. In this case, the company benefits, and in exchange for betraying the public, the official
receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of the sum the company received. This sum itself may be all
or a portion of the difference between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-
based price that would have been paid had the bidding been competitive.
Another example of a kickback would be if a judge receives a portion of the profits that a business makes in
exchange for his judicial decisions.
Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situations in which people are entrusted to spend funds
that do not belong to them are susceptible to this kind of corruption.

Unholy alliance
An unholy alliance is a coalition among seemingly antagonistic groups for ad hoc or hidden gain, generally
some influential non-governmental group forming ties with political parties, supplying funding in exchange for
favorable treatment. Like patronage, unholy alliances are not necessarily illegal, but unlike patronage, by its
deceptive nature and often great financial resources, an unholy alliance can be more dangerous to the public
interest. An early use of the term was by former US President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt:
"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and
corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." – 1912 Progressive Party Platform,
attributed to Roosevelt[39]
and quoted again in his autobiography,[40]
where he
connects trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson, Howard Taft,
and consequently both major political parties.
Involvement in organized crime
An illustrative example of official involvement in organized crime can be found from the 1920s and
1930s Shanghai, where Huang Jinrong was a police chief in the French concession, while simultaneously
being a gang boss and co-operating with Du Yuesheng, the local gang ringleader. The relationship kept
the flow of profits from the gang's gambling dens, prostitution, and protection rackets undisturbed and
safe.
The United States accused Manuel Noriega's government in Panama of being a "narcokleptocracy", a
corrupt government profiting on illegal drug trade.[42]
Later the U.S. invaded Panama and captured
Noriega.
Conditions favorable for corruption
Some research indicates that political corruption is contagious: the revelation of corruption in a sector
leads others in the sector to engage in corruption.[43]
It is arguedthe following conditions are favorable for corruption:
 Information deficits
o Lacking freedom of information legislation. In contrast, for example: The Indian Right to
Information Act 2005 is perceived to have "already engendered mass movements in the country
that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power
equations completely."[44]
o Lack of investigative reporting in the local media.[45]
o Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
o Weak accounting practices, including lack of timely financial management.
o Lack of measurement of corruption. For example, using regular surveys of households and
businesses in order to quantify the degree of perception of corruption in different parts of a
nation or in different government institutions may increase awareness of corruption and create
pressure to combat it. This will also enable an evaluation of the officials who are fighting
corruption and the methods used.

o Tax havens which tax their own citizens and companies but not those from other nations and
refuse to disclose information necessary for foreign taxation. This enables large-scale political
corruption in the foreign nations.
 Lacking control of the government.
o Lacking civic society and non-governmental organizations which monitor the government.
o An individual voter may have a rational ignorance regarding politics, especially in nationwide
elections, since each vote has little weight.
o Weak civil service, and slow pace of reform.
o Weak rule of law.
o Weak legal profession.
o Weak judicial independence.
o Lacking protection of whistleblowers.
 Government Accountability Project
o Lack of benchmarking, that is continual detailed evaluation of procedures and comparison to
others who do similar things, in the same government or others, in particular comparison to those
who do the best work. The Peruvian organization Ciudadanos al Dia has started to measure and
compare transparency, costs, and efficiency in different government departments in Peru. It
annually awards the best practices which has received widespread media attention. This has
created competition among government agencies in order to improve.[47]
o Individual officials routinely handle cash, instead of handling payments by giro or on a separate
cash desk – illegitimate withdrawals from supervised bank accounts are much more difficult to
conceal.
o Public funds are centralized rather than distributed. For example, if $1,000 is embezzled from a
local agency that has $2,000 funds, it is easier to notice than from a national agency with
$2,000,000 funds. See the principle of subsidiarity.
o Large, unsupervised public investments.
o Pay disproportionately lower than that of the average citizen.
o Government licenses needed to conduct business, e.g., import licenses, encourage bribing and
kickbacks.
o Long-time work in the same position may create relationships inside and outside the government
which encourage and help conceal corruption and favoritism. Rotating government officials to
different positions and geographic areas may help prevent this; for instance certain high rank
officials in French government services (e.g. treasurer-paymasters general) must rotate every few
years.
o Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding,
especially when funded with taxpayer money.
o A single group or family controlling most of the key government offices. Lack of laws
forbidding and limiting number of members of the same family to be in office .
o Less interaction with officials reduces the opportunities for corruption. For example, using the
Internet for sending in required information, like applications and tax forms, and then processing
this with automated computer systems. This may also speed up the processing and reduce
unintentional human errors. See e-Government.
o A windfall from exporting abundant natural resources may encourage
corruption.[48]
(See Resource curse)

o War and other forms of conflict correlate with a breakdown of public security.
 Social conditions
o Self-interested closed cliques and "old boy networks".
o Family-, and clan-centered social structure, with a tradition of nepotism/favouritism being
acceptable.
o A gift economy, such as the Soviet blat system, emerges in a Communist centrally planned
economy.
o Lacking literacy and education among the population.
o Frequent discrimination and bullying among the population.
o Tribal solidarity, giving benefits to certain ethnic groups. In the Indian political system, for
example, it has become common that the leadership of national and regional parties are passed
from generation to generation,[49][50]
creating a system in which a family holds the center of power.
Some examples are most of the Dravidian parties of south India and also the Nehru-Gandhi
family of the Congress party, which is one of the two major political parties in India.
o Lack of strong laws which forbid members of the same family to contest elections
and be in office as in India where local elections are often contested between
members of the same powerful family by standing in opposite parties so that
whoever is elected that particular family is at tremendous benefit.
Media
Thomas Jefferson observed a tendency for "The functionaries of every government ... to
command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit [for
liberty and property] ... without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to
read, all is safe."
Recent research supports Jefferson's claim. Brunetti and Weder found "evidence of a
significant relationship between more press freedom and less corruption in a large cross-
section of countries." They also presented "evidence which suggests that the direction of
causation runs from higher press freedom to lower corruption."[51]
Adserà, Boix, and Payne
found that increases in newspaper readership led to increased political accountability and
lower corruption in data from roughly 100 countries and from different states in the US.[52]
Snyder and Strömberg found "that a poor fit between newspaper markets and political
districts reduces press coverage of politics. ... Congressmen who are less covered by the local
press work less for their constituencies: they are less likely to stand witness before
congressional hearings ... . Federal spending is lower in areas where there is less press
coverage of the local members of congress."[53]
Schulhofer-Wohl and Garrido found that the
year after the Cincinnati Post closed in 2007, "fewer candidates ran for municipal office in
the Kentucky suburbs most reliant on the Post, incumbents became more likely to win re-
election, and voter turnout and campaign spending fell.[54]
An analysis of the evolution of mass media in the United States and European Union since
World War II noted mixed results from the growth of the Internet: "The digital revolution

has been good for freedom of expression [and] information [but] has had mixed effects on
freedom of the press": It has disrupted traditional sources of funding, and new forms of
Internet journalism have replaced only a tiny fraction of what's been lost.[55]
Media responses to whistleblower incidents or reports, and to matters which generate
skepticism in established law and government but may not technically be whistleblower
incidents, are limited by the prevalence of political correctness and speech codes in many
Western nations. In China and many other East Asian countries the state-enforced speech
codes limit or, in their view, channel the efforts of the media and civil society to reduce
public corruption.
Size of public sector
Extensive and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of cronyism, kickbacks,
and embezzlement. Complicated regulations and arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct
exacerbate the problem. This is one argument for privatization and deregulation. Opponents
of privatization see the argument as ideological. The argument that corruption necessarily
follows from the opportunity is weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-
existent corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic countries.[56]
These countries
score high on the Ease of Doing Business Index, due to good and often simple regulations
and have rule of law firmly established. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the first
place, they can run large public sectors without inducing political corruption. Recent
evidence that takes both the size of expenditures and regulatory complexity into account has
found that high-income democracies with more expansive state sectors do indeed have
higher levels of corruption.[6]
Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization, such as in the sale of
government-owned property, is particularly at the risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia,
Latin America, and East Germany were accompanied by large-scale corruption during the
sale of the state-owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large
wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media have reported
widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition
to increased operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without
privatization and that corruption is more prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore,
there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial activities are more prevalent in
countries that privatized less.[57]
In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a government service should
be provided by the lowest, most local authority that can competently provide it. An effect is
that distribution of funds in multiple instances discourages embezzlement because even
small sums missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a centralized authority, even minute
proportions of public funds can be large sums of money.

Conditions unfavorable for corruption
Wealth and power can have a compounding effect on political corruption, however, the
immunity from the law that money and influence bring will not come into effect when a
powerful individual injures or harms another powerful individual. An example of this
immunity being broken is Bernie Madoff, who while being rich and powerful himself, stole
from other rich and powerful individuals. This resulted in his eventual arrest despite his
status.[58]
Governmental corruption
If the highest echelons of the governments also take advantage of corruption or
embezzlement from the state's treasury, it is sometimes referred to
the neologism kleptocracy. Members of the government can take advantage of the natural
resources (e.g., diamonds and oil in a few prominent cases) or state-owned productive
industries. A number of corrupt governments have enriched themselves via foreign aid.
Indeed, there is a positive correlation between aid flows and high levels of corruption within
recipient countries.
Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa consists primarily of extracting economic rent and moving
the resulting financial capital overseas instead of investing at home. Authors Leonce
Ndikumana and James K. Boyce estimate that from 1970 to 2008, capital flight from 33 sub-
Saharan countries totalled $700 billion.[62]
A corrupt dictatorship typically results in many years of general hardship and suffering for
the vast majority of citizens as civil society and the rule of law disintegrate. In addition,
corrupt dictators routinely ignore economic and social problems in their quest to amass ever
more wealth and power.
The classic case of a corrupt, exploitive dictator often given is the regime of Marshal Mobutu
Sese Seko, who ruled the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which he renamed Zaire) from
1965 to 1997.[63]
It is said that usage of the term kleptocracy gained popularity largely in
response to a need to accurately describe Mobutu's regime. Another classic case is Nigeria,
especially under the rule of General Sani Abacha who was de facto president of Nigeria from
1993 until his death in 1998. He is reputed to have stolen some US$3–4 billion. He and his
relatives are often mentioned in Nigerian 419 letter scams claiming to offer vast fortunes for
"help" in laundering his stolen "fortunes", which in reality turn out not to exist.[64]
More than
$400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[65]

Judiciary corruption
There are two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and
various privileges), and the private. Budget of the judiciary in many transitional
and developing countries is almost completely controlled by the executive. The latter
undermines the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financial dependence of the
judiciary. The proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the
judiciary is subject of the constitutional economics.[66]
Judicial corruption can be difficult to
completely eradicate, even in developed countries.[67]
Opposition to corruption
Mobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting help to fight corruption, especially in
developing regions like Africa,[68]
where other forms of communications are limited. In
India, the anti-corruption bureau fights against corruption, and a new ombudsman bill
called Jan Lokpal Bill is being prepared.
In the 1990s, initiatives were taken at an international level (in particular by the European
Community, the Council of Europe, the OECD) to put a ban on corruption: in 1996, the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,[69]
for instance, adopted a comprehensive
Programme of Action against Corruption and, subsequently, issued a series of anti-
corruption standard-setting instruments:
 the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173);[27]
 the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174);[28]
 the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 191);[70]
 the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (Resolution (97) 24);[71]
 the Recommendation on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials (Recommendation No. R
(2000) 10);[72]
 the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political
Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4)[73]
The purpose of these instruments was to address the various forms of corruption (involving
the public sector, the private sector, the financing of political activities, etc.) whether they
had a strictly domestic or also a transnational dimension. To monitor the implementation at
national level of the requirements and principles provided in those texts, a monitoring
mechanism – the Group of States Against Corruption (also known as GRECO) (French:
Groupe d'Etats contre la corruption) was created.
Further conventions were adopted at the regional level under the aegis of the Organization of
American States (OAS or OEA), the African Union, and in 2003, at the universal level under
that of the United Nations Convention against Corruption where it is enabled with mutual

legal assistance between the states parties regarding investigations, processes and judicial
actions related to corruption crimes, as established in article 46.
Whistleblowers
A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes
any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an
organization that is either private or public. The information of alleged wrongdoing can be
classified in many ways: violation of company policy/rules, law, regulation, or threat to
public interest/national security, as well as fraud, and corruption. Those who become
whistleblowers can choose to bring information or allegations to the surface either internally
or externally. Internally, a whistleblower can bring his/her accusations to the attention of
other people within the accused organization such as an immediate supervisor. Externally, a
whistleblower can bring allegations to light by contacting a third party outside of an accused
organization such as the media, government, law enforcement, or those who are concerned.
Because of this, a number of laws exist to protect whistleblowers. Some third-party groups
even offer protection to whistleblowers, but that protection can only go so far.
Whistleblowers face legal action, criminal charges, social stigma, and termination from any
position, office, or job. Two other classifications of whistleblowing are private and public.
The classifications relate to the type of organizations someone chooses to whistle-blow on
private sector, or public sector. Depending on many factors, both can have varying results.
However, whistleblowing in the public sector organization is more likely to result in criminal
charges and possible custodial sentences. A whistleblower who chooses to accuse a private
sector organization or agency is more likely to face termination and legal and civil charges.
Deeper questions and theories of whistleblowing and why people choose to do so can be
studied through an ethical approach. Whistleblowing is a topic of ongoing ethical debate.
Leading arguments in the ideological camp that whistleblowing is ethical to maintain that
whistleblowing is a form of civil disobedience, and aims to protect the public from
government wrongdoing. In the opposite camp, some see whistleblowing as unethical for
breaching confidentiality, especially in industries that handle sensitive client or patient
information. Legal protection can also be granted to protect whistleblowers, but that
protection is subject to many stipulations. Hundreds of laws grant protection to
whistleblowers, but stipulations can easily cloud that protection and leave whistleblowers
vulnerable to retaliation and legal trouble. However, the decision and action have become far
more complicated with recent advancements in technology and communication.
Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group
they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law.
Questions about the legitimacy of whistleblowing, the moral responsibility of
whistleblowing, and the appraisal of the institutions of whistleblowing are part of the field of
political ethics

Measuring corruption
Measuring corruption accurately is difficult if not impossible due to the illicit nature of the
transaction and imprecise definitions of corruption.[74]
Few reliable measures of the
magnitude of corruption exist and among those, there is a high level of heterogeneity. One of
the most common ways to estimate corruption is through perception surveys. They have the
advantage of good coverage; however, they do not measure corruption precisely.[9]
While
"corruption" indices first appeared in 1995 with the Corruption Perceptions Index CPI, all of
these metrics address different proxies for corruption, such as public perceptions of the
extent of the problem.[75]
However, over time the refinement of methods and validation
checks against objective indicators has meant that, while not perfect, many of these
indicators are getting better at consistently and validly measuring the scale of corruption.[76]
Transparency International, an anti-corruption NGO, pioneered this field with the CPI, first
released in 1995. This work is often credited with breaking a taboo and forcing the issue of
corruption into high-level development policy discourse. Transparency International
currently publishes three measures, updated annually: a CPI (based on aggregating third-
party polling of public perceptions of how corrupt different countries are); a Global
Corruption Barometer (based on a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience
of corruption); and a Bribe Payers Index, looking at the willingness of foreign firms to pay
bribes. The Corruption Perceptions Index is the best known of these metrics, though it has
drawn much criticism and may be declining in influence.[79]
In 2013 Transparency
International published a report on the "Government Defence Anti-corruption Index". This
index evaluates the risk of corruption in countries' military sector.[80]
The World Bank collects a range of data on corruption,[81]
including survey responses from
over 100,000 firms worldwide[82]
and a set of indicators of governance and institutional
quality.[83]
Moreover, one of the six dimensions of governance measured by the Worldwide
Governance Indicators is Control of Corruption, which is defined as "the extent to which
power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as
well as 'capture' of the state by elites and private interests."[84]
While the definition itself is
fairly precise, the data aggregated into the Worldwide Governance Indicators is based on any
available polling: questions range from "is corruption a serious problem?" to measures of
public access to information, and not consistent across countries. Despite these weaknesses,
the global coverage of these datasets has led to their widespread adoption, most notably by
the Millennium Challenge Corporation.[74]
A number of parties have collected survey data, from the public and from experts, to try to
gauge the level of corruption and bribery, as well as its impact on political and economic
outcomes.[7][8]
A second wave of corruption metrics has been created by Global Integrity, the
International Budget Partnership,[85]
and many lesser known local groups. These metrics
include the Global Integrity Index,[86]
first published in 2004. These second wave projects

aim to create policy change by identifying resources more effectively and creating checklists
toward incremental reform. Global Integrity and the International Budget Partnership
[87]
each dispense with public surveys and instead uses in-country experts to evaluate "the
opposite of corruption" – which Global Integrity defines as the public policies that prevent,
discourage, or expose corruption.[88]
These approaches complement the first wave,
awareness-raising tools by giving governments facing public outcry a checklist which
measures concrete steps toward improved governance.[74]
Typical second wave corruption metrics do not offer the worldwide coverage found in first
wave projects and instead focus on localizing information gathered to specific problems and
creating deep, "un-packable content that matches quantitative and qualitative data.
Alternative approaches, such as the British aid agency's Drivers of Change research, skips
numbers and promotes understanding corruption via political economy analysis of who
controls power in a given society.[74]
Another approach, suggested for when conventional
measures of corruption are unavailable, is to look at the body fat of officials, after finding
that obesity of cabinet ministers in post-Soviet states was highly correlated with more
accurate measures.[89][90]
Institutions dealing with political corruption
 Corruption Perceptions Index, published yearly by Transparency International
 Freedom Guard, Ltd., a United States public benefit authority empowered to identify,
investigate, and civilly prosecute federal & state government corruption
 Global Witness, an international NGO established in 1993 that works to break the links
between natural resource exploitation, conflict, poverty, corruption, and human rights
abuses worldwide
 Group of States Against Corruption, a body established under the Council of Europe to
monitor the implementation of instruments adopted by member states to combat political
corruption
 Independent Commission Against Corruption (disambiguation)
 International Anti-Corruption Academy
 Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that monitors and
publicizes corporate and political corruption in international development

References
1. ^ Editorial Board (2013-09-15). "NSA, other government agencies should be more
transparent". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-04-27.
2. ^ Tanzi, Vito (1998-12-01). "Corruption Around the World: Causes, Consequences,
Scope, and Cures". Staff Papers. 45 (4): 559–594. doi:10.2307/3867585. ISSN 0020-
8027. JSTOR 3867585. S2CID 154535201.
3. ^ Thompson, Dennis. Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional
Corruption (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1995). ISBN 0-8157-
8423-6
4. ^ "African corruption 'on the wane'". 10 July 2007 – via news.bbc.co.uk.
5. ^ Alemann, Ulrich Von. 2004. "The Unknown Depths of Political Theory: the case
for a multidimensional concept of corruption." Crime, Law & Social Change 42(1):
25-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CRIS.0000041035.21045.1d
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c
Hamilton, Alexander (2013). "Small is beautiful, at least in high-
income democracies: the distribution of policy-making responsibility, electoral
accountability, and incentives for rent extraction" (PDF). World Bank.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b
Hamilton, A. and Hudson, J. (2014) The Tribes that Bind: Attitudes
to the Tribe and Tribal Leader in the Sudan. Bath Economic Research Papers
31/14. [1] Archived 2015-02-06 at the Wayback Machine
8. ^ Jump up to:a b
Hamilton, A. and Hudson, J. (2014) Bribery and Identity: Evidence
from Sudan. Bath Economic Research Papers 30/14.[2] Archived 2015-02-06 at
the Wayback Machine
Olken, Benjamin A.; Pande, Rohini (2012). "Corruption in
Developing Countries" (PDF). Annual Review of Economics. 4: 479–
509. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-
110917. hdl:1721.1/73081. S2CID 16399354.
10. ^ Luis Flores Ballesteros, "Corruption and development. Does the "rule of law"
factor weigh more than we think?" Archived 2016-01-02 at the Wayback
Machine 54 Pesos (November 15, 2008). Retrieved April 12, 2011
11. ^ Fisman, Raymond; Svensson, Jakob (2007). "Are corruption and taxation really
harmful to growth? Firm level evidence". Journal of Development
Economics. 83 (1): 63–
75. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.18.32. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.09.009. S2CID 16952584.
12. ^ "Corruption and growth in African countries: Exploring the investment channel,
lead author Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, Department of Economics" (PDF). University of
North Florida. p. 1,2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-09.
Retrieved 2012-06-07.

13. ^ "Nigeria's corruption busters". Unodc.org. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
14. ^ "When the money goes west". New Statesman. 2005-03-14. Archived from the
original on July 6, 2008. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
15. ^ Jump up to:a b
Garrett, Laurie (2007). "The Challenge of Global Health". Foreign
Affairs. 86 (1): 14–38. JSTOR 20032209.
"Will Growth Slow Corruption In India?". Forbes. 2007-08-15.
17. ^ Sheeter, Laura (2007-11-24). "Ukraine remembers famine horror". BBC News.
18. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f
Sarah Bailey (2008) Need and greed: corruption risks,
perceptions and prevention in humanitarian assistance Archived 2012-03-07 at
the Wayback Machine Overseas Development Institute
19. ^ Perrin, Pierre (30 June 1998). "The impact of humanitarian aid on conflict
development - ICRC". www.icrc.org.
20. ^ Nazim, Habibov (March 2016). "Effect of corruption on healthcare satisfaction in
post-soviet nations". Social Science & Medicine. 152: 119–
124. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.01.044. PMID 26854622.
21. ^ Borcan, Oana (February 2017). "Fighting corruption in education". American
Economic Journal. 9: 180–209.
22. ^ Altbach, Philiph (2015). "The Question of Corruption". International Higher
Education. 34.
23. ^ Heyneman, Stephen (2015). "The corruption of ethics in higher
education". International Higher Education. 62.
24. ^ Fidelman, Charlie (November 27, 2010). "Cash bribes put patients atop surgery
waiting lists". The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 2011-01-21.[dead link]
25. ^ Osipian, Ararat (2009-09-22). "Education Corruption, Reform, and Growth: Case
of Post-Soviet Russia". Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Munich University Library.
26. ^ "How common is bribe-paying?". Archived from the original on April 5, 2012. ...a
relatively high proportion of families in a group of Central Eastern European,
African, and Latin American countries paid a bribe in the previous twelve months.
27. ^ Jump up to:a b c d
"Criminal Law Convention on Corruption: CETS No. 173".
Conventions.coe.int. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
"Criminal Law Convention on Corruption: CETS No. 174".
Conventions.coe.int. Retrieved 2012-12-01.
29. ^ Gallagher, Tom (2012-08-09). "The EU Can't Ignore Its Romania Problem". The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
30. ^ Carty, R. K. (1944). Party and Parish Pump: Electoral Politics in Ireland. Wilfrid
Laurier University Press. ISBN 9780889201057.

31. ^ O´Conaire, L. (2010). Thinking Aloud; A Spark Can Destroy a Forest. Paragon
Publishing. ISBN 9781907611162.
32. ^ Shanklin, E. (1994). "Life Underneath the Market". In Chang, C.; Koster, H. A.
(eds.). Pastoralists at the Periphery: Herders in a Capitalist World. University of
Arizona. ISBN 9780816514304.
33. ^ Bresnihan, V. (1997). "Aspects of Irish Political Culture; A Hermeneutical
Perspective". In Carver, T.; Hyvarinen, M. (eds.). Interpreting the Political: New
Methodologies. Routledge. ISBN 9781134788446.
34. ^ "The bizarre story of 1MDB, the Goldman Sachs-backed Malaysian fund that
turned into one of the biggest scandals in financial history". Business Insider. 9
August 2019.
35. ^ "Najib Razak: Malaysian ex-PM gets 12-year jail term in 1MDB corruption
trial". BBC News. 2020-07-28.
36. ^ "Malaysia's ex–PM Najib sent to prison as final 1MDB appeal lost". the Guardian.
2022-08-23.
37. ^ "Najib arrives at Kajang Prison after court upholds jail term". The Star. 2022-08-
23.
38. ^ "embezzlement". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2022-12-13.
39. ^ Patricia O'Toole (2006-06-25). "The War of 1912". Time.com. Archived from the
original on July 3, 2006. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
40. ^ "Roosevelt, Theodore. An Autobiography: XV. The Peace of Righteousness,
Appendix B, New York: Macmillan, 1913". Bartleby.com. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
41. ^ "OCCRP announces 2015 Organized Crime and Corruption ‘Person of the Year'
Award". Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
42. ^ Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, Committee
on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (December
1988). "Panama" (PDF). Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy: A Report. S.
Prt. Vol. 100–165. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing
Office (published 1989). p. 83. OCLC 19806126. Archived from the original (PDF)
on October 7, 2016.
43. ^ Ajzenman, Nicolás (2021). "The Power of Example: Corruption Spurs
Corruption". American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 13 (2): 230–
257. doi:10.1257/app.20180612. ISSN 1945-7782. S2CID 233528998.
44. ^ "AsiaMedia :: Right to Information Act India's magic wand against corruption".
Asiamedia.ucla.edu. 2006-08-31. Archived from the original on 2008-09-26.
45. ^ "Investigative journalists as anti-corruption activists: An interview with Gerardo
Reyes". Transparency.org. 2013-06-07. Retrieved 2016-03-30.

46. ^ Mathiason, Nick (2007-01-21). "Western bankers and lawyers 'rob Africa of
$150bn every year". London: Observer.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
47. ^ "Why benchmarking works – PSD Blog – World Bank Group".
Psdblog.worldbank.org. 2006-08-17. Archived from the original on 2009-09-20.
48. ^ Damania, Richard; Bulte, Erwin (July 2003). "Resources for Sale: Corruption,
Democracy and the Natural Resource Curse" (PDF). Centre for International
Economic Studies, University of Adelaide. Archived from the original (PDF) on
2008-09-06. Retrieved 2010-12-11.
49. ^ Soutik Biswas (2011-01-18). "Is India sliding into a hereditary monarchy?". BBC.
BBC News. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
50. ^ Deo, Manjeet; Kripalani (2011-08-05). "The Gandhi dynasty: Politics as
usual". Rediff. Rediff News. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
51. ^ Brunetti, Aymo; Weder, Beatrice (2003). "A free press is bad news for
corruption". Journal of Public Economics. 87 (7–8): 1801–1824. doi:10.1016/s0047-
2727(01)00186-4.
52. ^ Adserà, Alícia; Boix, Carles [in Catalan]; Payne, Mark (2000). "Are You Being
Served?: Political Accountability and Quality of Government" (PDF). Working
Paper (438). Retrieved 2014-08-17. and Adserà, Alícia; Boix, Carles [in Catalan];
Payne, Mark (2003). "Are You Being Served? Political Accountability and Quality of
Government" (PDF). Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 19 (2): 445–
490. doi:10.1093/jleo/19.2.445. hdl:10419/87999. Retrieved 2014-08-31.
53. ^ Snyder, James M.; Strömberg, David (2010). "Press Coverage and Political
Accountability". Journal of Political Economy. 118 (2): 355–
408. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.210.8371. doi:10.1086/652903. S2CID 154635874.
54. ^ Schulhofer-Wohl, Sam; Garrido, Miguel (2013). "Do Newspapers Matter? Short-
Run and Long-Run Evidence From the Closure of The Cincinnati
Post" (PDF). Journal of Media Economics. 26 (2): 60–
81. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.193.9046. doi:10.1080/08997764.2013.785553. S2CID 155050
592.
55. ^ Starr, Paul (2012). "An Unexpected Crisis: The News Media in Post-industrial
Democracies" (PDF). International Journal of Press/Politics. 17 (2): 234–
242. doi:10.1177/1940161211434422. S2CID 146729965. Retrieved 2014-08-
31. Since 2000, the newspaper industry alone has lost an estimated "$1.6 billion in
annual reporting and editing capacity... or roughly 30 per cent," but the new non-
profit money coming into journalism has made up less than one-tenth that amount.
56. ^ "Lessons From the North". Project Syndicate. 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
57. ^ Privatization in Competitive Sectors: The Record to Date. Sunita Kikeri and John
Nellis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2860, June

2002. Econ.Chula.ac.th artimort.pdf IDEI.fr Archived March 25, 2009, at
the Wayback Machine
58. ^ When Governments Break the Law: The Rule of Law and the Prosecution of the
Bush Administration. NYU Press. 2010. ISBN 978-0-8147-4139-
9. JSTOR j.ctt9qg520.
59. ^ Nick Davies (May 7, 2016). "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos
millions?". The Guardian.
60. ^ Svensson, Jakob (2000). "Foreign Aid and Rent-Seeking". Journal of International
Economics. 51 (2): 437–461. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.195.5516. doi:10.1016/S0022-
1996(99)00014-8.
61. ^ Alesina, Alberto; Weder, Beatrice (2002). "Do Corrupt Governments Receive less
Foreign Aid?". American Economic Review. 92 (4): 1126–
1137. doi:10.1257/00028280260344669.
62. ^ "Should Africa challenge its "odious debts?"". Reuters. 15 March 2012. Archived
from the original on 8 May 2019.
63. ^ "How US nurtured dictators to Africa's detriment". Independent Online. 2
November 2018.
64. ^ Who wants to be a millionaire? – An online collection of Nigerian scam mails
65. ^ "Nigeria's corruption totals $400 billion". Malaysia Today. June 27, 2005.
Archived from the original on 2007-12-11.
66. ^ Barenboim, Peter (October 2009). Defining the rules. Vol. Issue 90. The European
Lawyer.
67. ^ Pahis, Stratos (2009). "Corruption in Our Courts: What It Looks Like and Where
It Is Hidden". The Yale Law Journal. 118. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
68. ^ "Mobile Phones and Radios Combat Corruption in Burundi – Voices from
Emerging Markets". Voicesfromemergingmarkets.com. 2009-03-12. Archived
from the original on 2009-06-30. Retrieved 2009-11-05.
69. ^ "Committee of Ministers – Home". Coe.int. Retrieved 2012-06-07.
70. ^ "Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption: CETS No.
191". Conventions.coe.int. Retrieved 2012-12-01.
71. ^ "Council of Europe: Resolution (97) 24: On the Twenty Guiding Principles for the
Fight Against Corruption" (PDF). Coe.int. Retrieved 2012-12-01.
72. ^ "Recommendation No. R (2000) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member
States on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials" (PDF). Coe.int. Retrieved 2012-12-
01.
73. ^ "Recommendation No. R (2003) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States
on Common Rules against Corruption" (PDF). Coe.int. Retrieved 2012-12-01.

74. ^ Jump up to:a b c d
"A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption". Global Integrity.
September 5, 2008. Archived from the original on January 31, 2011. Retrieved 2010-
12-11.
Galtung, Fredrik (2006). "Measuring the Immeasurable: Boundaries
and Functions of (Macro) Corruption Indices," in Measuring Corruption, Charles
Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung, Eds. (Ashgate):
101–130.
76. ^ Hamilton, Alexander (2017). "Can We Measure the Power of the Grabbing Hand?
A Comparative Analysis of Different Indicators of Corruption" (PDF). World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper Series.
77. ^ Sik, Endre (2002). "The Bad, the Worse and the Worst: Guesstimating the Level of
Corruption". In Kotkin, Stephen; Sajo, Andras (eds.). Political Corruption in
Transition: A Skeptic's Handbook. Budapest: Central European University Press.
pp. 91–113. ISBN 978-963-9241-46-6.
78. ^ Arndt, Christiane and Charles Oman (2006). Uses and Abuses of Governance
Indicators (Paris: OECD Development Centre).
79. ^ "Media citing Transparency International". Google Trends. Archived from the
original on 2017-10-19. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
80. ^ Mark Pyman (March 2013). "Transparency is feasible". dandc.eu.
81. ^ "WBI Governance & Anti-Corruption – Data". Worldbank.org. Retrieved 2012-12-
01.
82. ^ "Corruption – World Bank Survey of Business Managers". Enterprisesurveys.org.
83. ^ "Public Sector Governance – Indicators of Governance & Institutional Quality".
Go.worldbank.org. 2009-12-30. Archived from the original on 2012-01-10.
84. ^ "A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance" (PDF). The International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank. 2007. p. 3. Archived
from the original (PDF) on 2008-05-27.
85. ^ "Home - International Budget Partnership". International Budget Partnership.
86. ^ "The Global Integrity Report | Global Integrity". Report.globalintegrity.org.
Archived from the original on 2008-03-08. Retrieved 2012-06-07.
87. ^ "International Budget Partnership". Internationalbudget.org. 2012-05-28.
88. ^ "The Global Integrity Report: 2009 Methodology White Paper". Global Integrity.
2009. Archived from the original on 2011-03-07. Retrieved 2010-12-11.
89. ^ "Are overweight politicians less trustworthy?". The Economist. 30 Jul 2020.
Retrieved 23 Dec 2020.

90. ^ Blavatskyy, Pavlo (18 Jul 2020). "Obesity of politicians and corruption in post-
Soviet countries". Economics of Transition and Institutional Change. 2020 (2): 343–
356. doi:10.1111/ecot.12259. S2CID 225574749.
91. ^ Gallaher, Rachel (October 31, 2017). "Just Let Me Laugh at 'The Government
Inspector'". City Arts Magazine. Retrieved March 3, 2019.
92. ^ Meacham, Jon (September 11, 2018). "Henry Adams's 1880 Novel, 'Democracy,'
Resonates Now More Than Ever". The New York Times. Retrieved March 3, 2019. It
is a reflection on corruption within the political class, but, read carefully, it also
reinforces an ancient view that those who are disgusted with republican government
need to remember that the fault, as Cassius in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar"
remarked, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.
93. ^ Frum, David. "The Financier". FrumForum. Retrieved March
3, 2019. Cowperwood had to build his fortune in a world in which interest rates of
10% and 15% were very commonplace things, and not just because people were
poor and money was scarce. Capital was expensive because business was so non-
transparent. Companies disclosed only what they wished to disclose, and investors
demanded compensation for the huge risk that nasty surprises might be concealed in
company books. Cowperwood's solution? He discovers and puts to his own use the
corrupt practices of the city government of Philadelphia, described by Lincoln
Steffens as perhaps the worst governed big city in late 19th century America.
Cowperwood strikes a deal with the city treasurer: the treasurer will lend him money
from the city treasury at nominal rates – and with this money, Cowperwood will
build fortunes for them both.
Lingeman, Richard. "The Titan". American Heritage (Feb. / March
1993). Retrieved March 3, 2019. But he did write more, including his monumental
trilogy The Financier, The Titan, and The Stoic, in which he traced the rise of
finance capitalism and its corruption of municipal government through the career of
the predatory transit magnate Frank Cowperwood (based on the streetcar king
Charles Tyson Yerkes).
95. ^ Frum, David. "The Titan". FrumForum. Retrieved March 3, 2019. So
Cowperwood invents a brilliant plan. He will not seek a renewal for himself. Instead,
he has secret political associates launch an anti-Cowperwood campaign! They will
demand that streetcar monopolists like Cowperwood be regulated by a new Public
Utility Commission. The Commission will set rates, approve routes, and generally
protect the public from the likes of Frank Cowperwood. Of course, the advocates of
the commission acknowledge that the regulated companies will need some
compensation for this new public vigilance. So they propose a compromise: in
exchange for accepting the commission, all city franchises will be extended by 50
years. The commission proposal is advanced in the Illinois legislature, a body even
more corrupt if possible than the Chicago city council. Dreiser minutely describes

the protocol of corruption – how a bribe is asked, how it is offered, how it is paid,
how much a vote goes for.
96. ^ Arnold, Jeremy. "Washington Merry-Go-Round". Turner Classic Movies.
Retrieved March 3, 2019. The title was certainly fresh enough in the public discourse
to tell audiences that the film would probably address political corruption. Columbia
Pictures bought the rights to the title and commissioned a fictional story of
Congressman Button Gwinnett Brown, who draws the ire of his crooked colleagues
to the extent that they trump up a recount to try and unseat him.
97. ^ "washingtonpost.com: 'Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington'". www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2019-02-01. But this film caused
quite a stir in this town in 1939. The Washington Press Club sponsored a premiere
at Constitution Hall that was attended by congressmen, Senators and Supreme Court
justices. About halfway through the film, people started walking out. At another
dinner, Capra was criticized for showing graft in the Senate. The Washington press
corps, who didn't like the way reporters were portrayed, joined in the attacks against
Capra.
98. ^ Garton Ash, Timothy (October 30, 2001). "Why Orwell Matters". Hoover
Digest. 2001 (4). Retrieved March 3, 2019. Animal Farm is a timeless satire on the
central tragi-comedy of all politics – that is, the tragi-comedy of corruption by
power.
99. ^ Garner, Dwight (11 April 2016). "'All the King's Men,' Now 70, Has a Touch of
2016". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
100. ^ "Ayn Rand". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March
3, 2019. Atlas Shrugged offers a complex and compelling depiction of the economic,
political, and moral corruption spawned by "cronyism" between government and
business.
101. ^ Malcolm, Derek (7 January 1999). "Orson Welles: A Touch of Evil". The
Guardian. Retrieved March 26, 2019. ...it was generally underrated by the American
critics of the time, who saw in it merely an eccentric thriller rather than a
calculatedly dramatic study of the corruption of power and the difference between
morality and justice.
102. ^ "Charo Santos and her triumphant return to film in Lav Diaz's 'Ang Babaeng
Humayo'". cnn. Retrieved 2018-09-11.
103. ^ Hynes, James (1 February 2000). "Carl Hiaasen, Sick Puppy". Boston Review.
Retrieved 23 February 2019.
104. ^ Webster, Andy (January 15, 2007). "Polyester and Power at Play for a Mogul
and His India". The New York Times. Retrieved September 11, 2018.
105. ^ Staples, Louis (7 November 2018). "The House of Cards ending summed up
everything abhorrent about 2018". New Statesman. Retrieved March 3, 2019. House
of Cards displayed the corruption of America's institutions and the elites who

manipulate them as they become intoxicated by the pursuit of power, money and
status. But amongst the backstabbing and political games, the cleverest thing about
the show was the fact that its main characters – Francis and Claire Underwood –
were merciless and evil, but also likeable.

THINKING ON HOW TO KILL THE KILLER BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL WHO IS THE KILLER? POLITICAL CORRUPTION IS OUR KILLER IN AFRICA

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to THINKING ON HOW TO KILL THE KILLER BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL WHO IS THE KILLER? POLITICAL CORRUPTION IS OUR KILLER IN AFRICA

Similar to THINKING ON HOW TO KILL THE KILLER BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL WHO IS THE KILLER? POLITICAL CORRUPTION IS OUR KILLER IN AFRICA (16)

More from PROF. PAUL ALLIEU KAMARA

More from PROF. PAUL ALLIEU KAMARA (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

THINKING ON HOW TO KILL THE KILLER BEFORE HE KILLS US ALL WHO IS THE KILLER? POLITICAL CORRUPTION IS OUR KILLER IN AFRICA